Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

A whole set of contradictions here. At first you used biological age to define Rosewall's peak, and you set it at 21-25. Presumably you see some decline beginning at 25, or else you would have specified a higher age.

But then you contradicted this definition by claiming that Pancho Gonzalez played his best at the age of 30-31, in 1958-59, when he faced Hoad. That's not a small contradiction. Pancho should have had 5 years of biological decline already, according to you. But somehow he reverses the biological process and plays, over the course of two seasons, the best tennis he's ever played? Just because he faced Hoad then?

And now in your last post you've stopped talking about how Rosewall played his best due to biological reasons. You could have kept to that reasoning, and simply made an exception for Gonzalez (as unconvincing as that exception is). But instead you drop the biological angle and return to the competition angle: Rosewall, according to you, played his best at the age of 25 (the 1959 season), not for biological reasons, but because he was facing the toughest competition of his career.

So really the only consistent guiding principle here is that a player, according to you, reaches his peak when he faces the toughest competition of his career. And specifically, Pancho and Kenny were at their peak levels when they faced Lew. THAT is the only consistent thread in your reasoning -- if you can call it reasoning at all. It really is more like hero worship: all players, and their careers, revolve around Lew Hoad's peak.

And there's also a little bit of mythologizing about the past in general, because what you're claiming is that 3 of the greatest champions we've ever had simultaneously reached their peaks in two glorious seasons (1958-59).

Click to expand...

krosero, as so often you can argue better than many others including myself.

Thanks for your clear argumentation without any insulting words which I sometimes used towards Dan because I can't stand his style of argumentation.

He can post, his ban was very brief. I also hope he'll post -- if that's what he wants.

Re: your last post: thank you, and yes, I know what you mean about patience running thin ...

Click to expand...

krosero, I find it a great pity that a man of the calibre of Dan Lobb who knows so much about tennis history, damages his own status with sometimes "strange" arguments.

Last example for this: Dan writes that Hoad as a pro rookie won after one month. Against whom? Against Jacques Iemetti 6-2,6-8,6-4. After that he lost to Kramer in straight sets. To the same he lost at Wembley...

But Dan is right that Hoad had several fine wins against Rosewall, Segura and Kramer in the European tour which he won together with Rosewall. That was a good preparation for the tour against Gonzalez.

A whole set of contradictions here. At first you used biological age to define Rosewall's peak, and you set it at 21-25. Presumably you see some decline beginning at 25, or else you would have specified a higher age.

But then you contradicted this definition by claiming that Pancho Gonzalez played his best at the age of 30-31, in 1958-59, when he faced Hoad. That's not a small contradiction. Pancho should have had 5 years of biological decline already, according to you. But somehow he reverses the biological process and plays, over the course of two seasons, the best tennis he's ever played? Just because he faced Hoad then?

And now in your last post you've stopped talking about how Rosewall played his best due to biological reasons. You could have kept to that reasoning, and simply made an exception for Gonzalez (as unconvincing as that exception is). But instead you drop the biological angle and return to the competition angle: Rosewall, according to you, played his best at the age of 25 (the 1959 season), not for biological reasons, but because he was facing the toughest competition of his career.

So really the only consistent guiding principle here is that a player, according to you, reaches his peak when he faces the toughest competition of his career. And specifically, Pancho and Kenny were at their peak levels when they faced Lew. THAT is the only consistent thread in your reasoning -- if you can call it reasoning at all. It really is more like hero worship: all players, and their careers, revolve around Lew Hoad's peak.

And there's also a little bit of mythologizing about the past in general, because what you're claiming is that 3 of the greatest champions we've ever had simultaneously reached their peaks in two glorious seasons (1958-59).

Click to expand...

No. I did not specify a DECLINE for Rosewall until 1964. What I stated was he reached his peak level in 1958-60, because THE LEVEL OF COMPETITION was the highest then.
Yes, Gonzales raised his game during the two years he played Hoad, as Vines and others pointed out.
This is not MY reasoning, but the reasoning used by Gonzales, Vines and others, which I agree with.
Yes, 1958-9 looks like the summit of tennis.

No smoke? Ouch! Such a creative excuse given for a champion's losses, and it goes right out the window!

But there are many more.

Maybe Lew had a bad back.

Maybe the encounter was not sponsored by Ampol, so Lew just couldn't get motivated for it....

Maybe Kenny was best man at Hoad's wedding, and Lew wanted to go easy on him....

Etcetera etcetera

Click to expand...

I think that if one player is limping around with a pulled hamstring, that diminishes the quality of the play.
Actually, Gonzales himself singled out the Kooyong match as the best ever between these two players.
As these two guys are probably one and two all-time, you would have to say this was the greatest match ever.
Should we start a thread on that?

krosero, I find it a great pity that a man of the calibre of Dan Lobb who knows so much about tennis history, damages his own status with sometimes "strange" arguments.

Last example for this: Dan writes that Hoad as a pro rookie won after one month. Against whom? Against Jacques Iemetti 6-2,6-8,6-4. After that he lost to Kramer in straight sets. To the same he lost at Wembley...

But Dan is right that Hoad had several fine wins against Rosewall, Segura and Kramer in the European tour which he won together with Rosewall. That was a good preparation for the tour against Gonzalez.

Click to expand...

On Aug 21, Hoad defeated Kramer, the following day he beat Segura.
He had started pro play July 14. Didn't take long.

Many of his contemporaries regarded him as the most talented player who could have achieved more. Hoad had a reputation as a tough bloke that valued the women and party lifestyle more than his career. Sounds like my type of guy!

On Aug 21, Hoad defeated Kramer, the following day he beat Segura.
He had started pro play July 14. Didn't take long.

Click to expand...

Dan,

Fledgling pros in those days of course are going to have some wins. Hoad MAY adapt well but he also lost a lot in the beginning before being taken aside so players like Kramer and Segura could train him for the pro tour. Hoad had a lot of help others did not in adapting. Did Segura defeat Hoad on August 21, 1956 6-1 6-3 according to McCauley?

Kramer for example defeated Hoad at Wembley in September and according to Kramer beat Hoad in a series of matches around 13 to 12. There is no way Kramer, who was older and hurting should have been able to handle a young Lew Hoad but he did.

Fledgling pros in those days of course are going to have some wins. Hoad MAY adapt well but he also lost a lot in the beginning before being taken aside so players like Kramer and Segura could train him for the pro tour. Hoad had a lot of help others did not in adapting. Did Segura defeat Hoad on August 21, 1956 6-1 6-3 according to McCauley?

Kramer for example defeated Hoad at Wembley in September and according to Kramer beat Hoad in a series of matches around 13 to 12. There is no way Kramer, who was older and hurting should have been able to handle a young Lew Hoad but he did.

Some players never totally adapted.

Click to expand...

Actually, the plan was to capitalize on Hoad's Wimbledon victory and tour with Gonzales in the fall of 1957.
However, Hoad started a losing streak and a crisis of confidence in July and August which required postponement of the tour until January, while Kramer coached Hoad into a better game.
However, Hoad was soon beating Rosewall regularly on the European tour, and Kramer was angry that Hoad apparently made little effort to beat him or Segura. Hoad explained that he and Rosewall had a long history, and this gave him the motivation to play harder in their matches.
Laver played practice matches against Hoad and Rosewall before the 1963 tour began, and he beat Rosewall at Kooyong early in the series in the most important match.

No. I did not specify a DECLINE for Rosewall until 1964. What I stated was he reached his peak level in 1958-60, because THE LEVEL OF COMPETITION was the highest then.
Yes, Gonzales raised his game during the two years he played Hoad, as Vines and others pointed out.
This is not MY reasoning, but the reasoning used by Gonzales, Vines and others, which I agree with.
Yes, 1958-9 looks like the summit of tennis.

Click to expand...

You did not specify a decline for Rosewall until 1964, that's fine. If there was no decline, then he was at his peak until 1964, and that is approximately where most people, I think, tend to place Rosewall's peak.

I think the point of contention is your argument -- if I have it right -- that Rosewall maintained his peak level from as early as 1958 through 1964: meaning that he did not improve in the early 60s. And I think that's really a difficult argument to make: particularly because you identify biological peak years as 21-25. Rosewall turned 25 in late 1959. According to you he should have started declining then, and would not any longer be playing his peak tennis in '63, for example.

That's actually what I thought you were arguing before: that Rosewall was at his best in the late 50s, and not in the early 60s.

Whatever, I don't want to make too many points about this. I just think you've made incompatible arguments. You think biological decline begins at 25, yet you argue that Gonzalez played his best tennis after five years of biological decline -- just because he was playing Hoad. I have no problem with the idea, as stated by Vines and others, that Pancho lifted his play when he encountered Hoad; but to place his peak years there, five years after you think biological decline begins, is something else altogether. I know when we romanticize sports, we talk about old champions "turning back the clock." But decline cannot be reversed. If you think Pancho really played two seasons of his peak tennis in 1958-59, then really you need to revise your opinion that tennis players reach their peak at 21 and begin declining at 25.

Now somehow I think you're going to respond that you didn't specify a decline at 25. But that's what you're saying, if you specify peak years as being 21-25: that means necessarily that decline begins at 25.

I think if you acknowledged that tennis players can peak at different times, and as late as the age of 30, in cases such as Pancho's, then a lot of these contradictions disappear. Then it becomes perfectly plausible to say that Pancho played the best tennis of his life when he met Hoad (I'm not saying whether that was true or not: I'm just saying it would be plausible).

But if you allow that, then there is no reason not to allow Rosewall to do the same, ie, to play the best tennis of his life at around the age of 30, meaning in 1964. Not in the 1950s. If you think Pancho raised the level of his game from where it had been in previous seasons, then Rosewall could do the same.

I know you think Rosewall had no competition in the early 60s and thus did not improve on his late 50s level. But if tennis players can lift their games to higher levels than ever at the age of 30 (as you think Pancho did), then there's no reason to think that Rosewall did not keep improving right up until a similar age. If tennis players can improve throughout their 20s, then great champions like Rosewall will certainly improve.

The idea that Gonzalez improved throughout his late 20s while Rosewall -- with his unparalleled youthfulness, as a tennis player -- stopped improving after the age of 25, merely because he was no longer facing peak Hoad.... that doesn't wash at all.

There really appears to be no consistent principle in your argument, except that everything revolves around Hoad. Pancho, Ken and Lew, you've got them all peaking in 1958-59, regardless of their birthdays, and whether or not they were 21, 25, or 30. It's just a little constellation with peak Hoad in the center, and everything revolves around it.

You did not specify a decline for Rosewall until 1964, that's fine. If there was no decline, then he was at his peak until 1964, and that is approximately where most people, I think, tend to place Rosewall's peak.

I think the point of contention is your argument -- if I have it right -- that Rosewall maintained his peak level from as early as 1958 through 1964: meaning that he did not improve in the early 60s. And I think that's really a difficult argument to make: particularly because you identify biological peak years as 21-25. Rosewall turned 25 in late 1959. According to you he should have started declining then, and would not any longer be playing his peak tennis in '63, for example.

That's actually what I thought you were arguing before: that Rosewall was at his best in the late 50s, and not in the early 60s.

Whatever, I don't want to make too many points about this. I just think you've made incompatible arguments. You think biological decline begins at 25, yet you argue that Gonzalez played his best tennis after five years of biological decline -- just because he was playing Hoad. I have no problem with the idea, as stated by Vines and others, that Pancho lifted his play when he encountered Hoad; but to place his peak years there, five years after you think biological decline begins, is something else altogether. I know when we romanticize sports, we talk about old champions "turning back the clock." But decline cannot be reversed. If you think Pancho really played two seasons of his peak tennis in 1958-59, then really you need to revise your opinion that tennis players reach their peak at 21 and begin declining at 25.

Now somehow I think you're going to respond that you didn't specify a decline at 25. But that's what you're saying, if you specify peak years as being 21-25: that means necessarily that decline begins at 25.

I think if you acknowledged that tennis players can peak at different times, and as late as the age of 30, in cases such as Pancho's, then a lot of these contradictions disappear. Then it becomes perfectly plausible to say that Pancho played the best tennis of his life when he met Hoad (I'm not saying whether that was true or not: I'm just saying it would be plausible).

But if you allow that, then there is no reason not to allow Rosewall to do the same, ie, to play the best tennis of his life at around the age of 30, meaning in 1964. Not in the 1950s. If you think Pancho raised the level of his game from where it had been in previous seasons, then Rosewall could do the same.

I know you think Rosewall had no competition in the early 60s and thus did not improve on his late 50s level. But if tennis players can lift their games to higher levels than ever at the age of 30 (as you think Pancho did), then there's no reason to think that Rosewall did not keep improving right up until a similar age. If tennis players can improve throughout their 20s, then great champions like Rosewall will certainly improve.

The idea that Gonzalez improved throughout his late 20s while Rosewall -- with his unparalleled youthfulness, as a tennis player -- stopped improving after the age of 25, merely because he was no longer facing peak Hoad.... that doesn't wash at all.

There really appears to be no consistent principle in your argument, except that everything revolves around Hoad. Pancho, Ken and Lew, you've got them all peaking in 1958-59, regardless of their birthdays, and whether or not they were 21, 25, or 30. It's just a little constellation with peak Hoad in the center, and everything revolves around it.

Click to expand...

krosero, Again you explained the matter very good. I think you could be an extraordinary lawyer (maybe you are one).

I had to smile a bit when Dan wrote that Rosewall was at his peak in 1958/59 BECAUSE then was the toughest competition. The latter can be true and it's also true that tough competition can help a player to improve but there is not a causality that all players must have their peak when the competition is the strongest. Otherwise Pancho Segura should have had also his prime in 1958/59.

I could ask Ken if he thinks that he had his peak years in the end-1950s but I woun't do so because I fear that Rosewall would believe I'm not serious...

I do know that Muscles once said that he played better tennis in 1970 than in 1956 even though he was well past his prime in 1970.

By the way, I also could ask Ken if he thinks that Hoad was generally the GOAT in his opinion (i.e. even regarding his achievements). But again I hesitate to ask him because I'm sure that he (as also Rod does) does know that the list of achievements of Lew Hoad is significantly smaller than the list of many other players from Tilden to Federer.

I think that "love makes blind". In the case of Dan I believe that his enthusiasm for Lew (although understandably) brings him sometimes to wrong conclusions. I do hope that my enthusiasm for Muscles does not cause an overrating of Rosewall...

krosero, Again you explained the matter very good. I think you could be an extraordinary lawyer (maybe you are one).

I had to smile a bit when Dan wrote that Rosewall was at his peak in 1958/59 BECAUSE then was the toughest competition. The latter can be true and it's also true that tough competition can help a player to improve but there is not a causality that all players must have their peak when the competition is the strongest. Otherwise Pancho Segura should have had also his prime in 1958/59.

I could ask Ken if he thinks that he had his peak years in the end-1950s but I woun't do so because I fear that Rosewall would believe I'm not serious...

I do know that Muscles once said that he played better tennis in 1970 than in 1956 even though he was well past his prime in 1970.

By the way, I also could ask Ken if he thinks that Hoad was generally the GOAT in his opinion (i.e. even regarding his achievements). But again I hesitate to ask him because I'm sure that he (as also Rod does) does know that the list of achievements of Lew Hoad is significantly smaller than the list of many other players from Tilden to Federer.

I think that "love makes blind". In the case of Dan I believe that his enthusiasm for Lew (although understandably) brings him sometimes to wrong conclusions. I do hope that my enthusiasm for Muscles does not cause an overrating of Rosewall...

Click to expand...

The bold part is perfectly stated, that's exactly how I see it.

Not a lawyer, no. I just like arguing. Which is sometimes good, sometimes, well, shall we say, less useful...

I do remember Rosewall said that in 1970, don't have the exact quote.

The thing about asking Rosewall personally about these things is that, well, there are many things, but one problem is that our exact arguments and their context are not easy to transmit to someone who is not a part of them.

Another thing is that even if an answer is given, some people will misunderstand or misuse the information.

Heck of course I'm not saying whether or not to ask, just that I understand your caution about it. Perfectly sensible.

A little exception from my pause in the discussions with yourself: Please read post 538! There you yet wrote about peak years 21-25, not about maturity ,as you later wrote.

The peak years of most greats prior to Connors and Borg were 25 or 26 to 29 or 30.

Please be serious!

Click to expand...

Not quite.
I pointed out the level of competition he faced in the late fifties, PLUS the fact that he was biologically peaking AS WELL AS facing his toughest competition ever.
There was a combination of factors.

You did not specify a decline for Rosewall until 1964, that's fine. If there was no decline, then he was at his peak until 1964, and that is approximately where most people, I think, tend to place Rosewall's peak.

I think the point of contention is your argument -- if I have it right -- that Rosewall maintained his peak level from as early as 1958 through 1964: meaning that he did not improve in the early 60s. And I think that's really a difficult argument to make: particularly because you identify biological peak years as 21-25. Rosewall turned 25 in late 1959. According to you he should have started declining then, and would not any longer be playing his peak tennis in '63, for example.

That's actually what I thought you were arguing before: that Rosewall was at his best in the late 50s, and not in the early 60s.

Whatever, I don't want to make too many points about this. I just think you've made incompatible arguments. You think biological decline begins at 25, yet you argue that Gonzalez played his best tennis after five years of biological decline -- just because he was playing Hoad. I have no problem with the idea, as stated by Vines and others, that Pancho lifted his play when he encountered Hoad; but to place his peak years there, five years after you think biological decline begins, is something else altogether. I know when we romanticize sports, we talk about old champions "turning back the clock." But decline cannot be reversed. If you think Pancho really played two seasons of his peak tennis in 1958-59, then really you need to revise your opinion that tennis players reach their peak at 21 and begin declining at 25.

Now somehow I think you're going to respond that you didn't specify a decline at 25. But that's what you're saying, if you specify peak years as being 21-25: that means necessarily that decline begins at 25.

I think if you acknowledged that tennis players can peak at different times, and as late as the age of 30, in cases such as Pancho's, then a lot of these contradictions disappear. Then it becomes perfectly plausible to say that Pancho played the best tennis of his life when he met Hoad (I'm not saying whether that was true or not: I'm just saying it would be plausible).

But if you allow that, then there is no reason not to allow Rosewall to do the same, ie, to play the best tennis of his life at around the age of 30, meaning in 1964. Not in the 1950s. If you think Pancho raised the level of his game from where it had been in previous seasons, then Rosewall could do the same.

I know you think Rosewall had no competition in the early 60s and thus did not improve on his late 50s level. But if tennis players can lift their games to higher levels than ever at the age of 30 (as you think Pancho did), then there's no reason to think that Rosewall did not keep improving right up until a similar age. If tennis players can improve throughout their 20s, then great champions like Rosewall will certainly improve.

The idea that Gonzalez improved throughout his late 20s while Rosewall -- with his unparalleled youthfulness, as a tennis player -- stopped improving after the age of 25, merely because he was no longer facing peak Hoad.... that doesn't wash at all.

There really appears to be no consistent principle in your argument, except that everything revolves around Hoad. Pancho, Ken and Lew, you've got them all peaking in 1958-59, regardless of their birthdays, and whether or not they were 21, 25, or 30. It's just a little constellation with peak Hoad in the center, and everything revolves around it.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think that Rosewall peaked in the late fifties, due to BOTH biological and competitive reasons. He was pushed by the competition, PLUS he was biologically peaking in the late fifties. Not just Hoad, but Gonzales, Sedgman, Trabert, Segura, etc. A deep field.
I think that Rosewall may have declined in the early sixties due to less play, which was true for everyone, and age, although Hoad and Gonzales declined much more.
Gonzales and Rosewall and Laver all played fantastic tennis into their late twenties, pushed by great competition. Serious physical decline usually starts in the early thirties, 31 or 32, but some, like Hoad, decline earlier due to injury and lack of training.

Not quite.
I pointed out the level of competition he faced in the late fifties, PLUS the fact that he was biologically peaking AS WELL AS facing his toughest competition ever.
There was a combination of factors.

Click to expand...

That's wrong. You did write about peak years at 21 to 25. In a later post you changed to "Maturity" at that age...

Not a lawyer, no. I just like arguing. Which is sometimes good, sometimes, well, shall we say, less useful...

I do remember Rosewall said that in 1970, don't have the exact quote.

The thing about asking Rosewall personally about these things is that, well, there are many things, but one problem is that our exact arguments and their context are not easy to transmit to someone who is not a part of them.

Another thing is that even if an answer is given, some people will misunderstand or misuse the information.

Heck of course I'm not saying whether or not to ask, just that I understand your caution about it. Perfectly sensible.

Click to expand...

krosero, Yes, your kind of arguing (and maybe mine too) is not always welcome. Some people don't like an arguing with strong logic and consequence. Between consequence and inconsequence I prefer to be consequent in my arguing. As one can see also in this forum, I sometimes have some difficulties with a few posters (for the moment just with one poster...).

Yes, many great players don't have kept records of their career and don't have researched their results as meticulously as historians use to do.

Yes, some people misunderstand the remarks of all-time greats, f.i. Laver's and Rosewall's rankings which obviously refer to peak level but not to achievements.

krosero, Yes, your kind of arguing (and maybe mine too) is not always welcome. Some people don't like an arguing with strong logic and consequence. Between consequence and inconsequence I prefer to be consequent in my arguing. As one can see also in this forum, I sometimes have some difficulties with a few posters (for the moment just with one poster...).

Yes, many great players don't have kept records of their career and don't have researched their results as meticulously as historians use to do.

Yes, some people misunderstand the remarks of all-time greats, f.i. Laver's and Rosewall's rankings which obviously refer to peak level but not to achievements.

Click to expand...

Laver, in the Sydney Herald in Jan. 2012, gives a detailed analysis of all the greats, and makes no mention of "peak" levels.

I just called Bud Collins, and Bud assured me that Laver was NOT injured in the 1972 WCT final.

Sometimes it even happened that Rosewall won matches even though his opponent was not injured or ill...

Click to expand...

I think that I read somewhere that Laver had chronic arthritis pain in his back in the early seventies, but I guess you do not think that this constitutes an injury in the technical sense.
Perhaps we should transfer this issue to the Laver blog.
Laver always maintained that the best match he ever played was the 1963 French indoor final on wood against Rosewall.

I think that I read somewhere that Laver had chronic arthritis pain in his back in the early seventies, but I guess you do not think that this constitutes an injury in the technical sense.
Perhaps we should transfer this issue to the Laver blog.
Laver always maintained that the best match he ever played was the 1963 French indoor final on wood against Rosewall.

Click to expand...

Dan, I believe that Laver meant he played his best match at Paris in 1963 TILL THAT TIME. Otherwise it would mean that his best was weaker than Rosewall's best. This neither you not I would think...

In the book ghosted by Bud Collins, Laver states.."I still think that I played the best tennis of my life in the Stade Coubertin final in 1963.." in the context of praising Rosewall's game.

Click to expand...

Okay, Dan, but if Laver actually played his best tennis and still lost to Rosewall, why do you rank Laver ahead of Rosewall?

And why does Rod rank Muscles only at sixth place in his pre-open era list?

By the way, Bud Collins rates their 1966 US Pro final (when Laver beat Rosewall in five sets) as the best of their famous encounters. But I concede that Bud maybe has not watched the 1963 French Pro final (and some of the Wembley finals).

A new angle to look at;
The 2 wonderkids are one of the top 10 ever doubles
The other 9 are IMO
Sedgman and Mc Gregor
Newk and Rochey
Bromwich and Quist
The Woodies
5 of top 10 aussies, the kings of doubles
The other 5 are
Hewitt and Mc Millan
Fleming and Mc Enroe
Borotra and Lacoste
Brugnon and Cochet
Jarryd and Edberg (peak play since Anders had a longer career with Fitzie)

Okay, Dan, but if Laver actually played his best tennis and still lost to Rosewall, why do you rank Laver ahead of Rosewall?

And why does Rod rank Muscles only at sixth place in his pre-open era list?

By the way, Bud Collins rates their 1966 US Pro final (when Laver beat Rosewall in five sets) as the best of their famous encounters. But I concede that Bud maybe has not watched the 1963 French Pro final (and some of the Wembley finals).

Click to expand...

I think that Laver's greatest play against Rosewall was in the 1964 Wembley final, where he paced himself better than 1963, and Rosewall tired at the end.
I would rate Rosewall at #5, still great ranking.

In an interview with the Spanish newspaper Marca, Laver said in July 2012, that he played his best tennis at LA 1968 in the final of the important Pacific South West event, beating Rosewall 4-6,6-0,6-0. I gave the link in another thread.

In an interview with the Spanish newspaper Marca, Laver said in July 2012, that he played his best tennis at LA 1968 in the final of the important Pacific South West event, beating Rosewall 4-6,6-0,6-0. I gave the link in another thread.

Click to expand...

urban, I agree with Rod here. Another great match of Laver was the 1968 Wembley final when Rosewall won only one game in three sets (Rosewall's worst loss). But both matches happened when Rosewall was past his prime.

A new angle to look at;
The 2 wonderkids are one of the top 10 ever doubles
The other 9 are IMO
Sedgman and Mc Gregor
Newk and Rochey
Bromwich and Quist
The Woodies
5 of top 10 aussies, the kings of doubles
The other 5 are
Hewitt and Mc Millan
Fleming and Mc Enroe
Borotra and Lacoste
Brugnon and Cochet
Jarryd and Edberg (peak play since Anders had a longer career with Fitzie)

Click to expand...

kiki, Hoad/Rosewall keep still the record of most major titles won (15).

I don't rank the Woodies very high because they had rather weak competition. In older times all top players played doubles too, but not in the times of Woodbridge/Woodforde or nowadays.

Dan, It's more than speculation. I cannot prove that there were some clay matches and you cannot disprove it. Both ways are possible.

We do know that H&R played about 25 matches in those years but we need the specification.

You only can claim a balance is a "lifetime balance" if you have the exact numbers. For instance Laver vs Rosewall: we don't have a sure lifetime balance yet. We have counted 75:62 or so matches. But it's possible that Old Man is right with his 99:83 balance. Maybe Old Man can say more about it. The 75:62 balance we should value as a provisional balance, not the sure lifetime balance.

You can't ignore that Rosewall gave that about 20:5 balance for 1961 to early 1963. It's worth to be detected...

Regarding the old pro scene we seldom have the exact hth balance of two players. See Nüsslein: we only know that he was 10:0 against Cochet but we only can estimate his balance against Tilden (possibly about 200:180) or against Vines (possibly about 25:45).

A serious writer would always add: "It's an approximate number, a rough hth".

Click to expand...

We cannot accept ANY match as part of a lifetime head-to-head on a particular surface unless we know where and when it was played, and at least a hint of the surface. Anything less is too vague.
I was willing to allow POSSIBLE surfaces into my lists as "ASTERISKS" only, as part of a supplemental list. But even there, for example the 1963 and 1964 Cannes Indoor, do not appear to be clay events, as the building was a multi-purpose stadium, unlikely to house a clay court (which, as far as I know, are NOT portable surfaces).

But not when we know about many other matches which have been played even though we still need their exact results!

Click to expand...

Again, we need at least the location, date, and score (if possible. Knowing the score helps to solidify the result). We can GUESS at the surface, but not always. For example, the pro tournaments at Melbourne in 1964 and 1967 were NOT held at Kooyong, probably indoor at the Olympic pool on cheap carpet. The Australian Tennis Federation had banned the pros from the major outdoor grasscourts.

Again, we need at least the location, date, and score (if possible. Knowing the score helps to solidify the result). We can GUESS at the surface, but not always. For example, the pro tournaments at Melbourne in 1964 and 1967 were NOT held at Kooyong, probably indoor at the Olympic pool on cheap carpet. The Australian Tennis Federation had banned the pros from the major outdoor grasscourts.

Click to expand...

Dan, You should take the same rigid measure at your own claims such as your strange 14:0 series of Hoad vs. Laver

Dan, You should take the same rigid measure at your own claims such as your strange 14:0 series of Hoad vs. Laver

Click to expand...

Actually, the 14 to 0 claims were not made by Hoad himself (unlike your quote of Rosewall), but by Laver and Bucholz.
However, I think that what these extra six matches consist of are unrecorded exhibition matches, clearly of a lesser value than regular tournament or hth tour matches.
I think that Rosewall's reference was puffed by the inclusion of exhibition matches, for example, I read that Rosewall won an 8 to 0 exhibition series against Hoad in mid-1960. There exists no records of locations, dates, or scores.
Similarly, Laver beat Hoad in an exhibition series in Laver's home state in Jan. 1964, 7 matches to 1. This was also unrecorded as to date, location, and scores, only the final tally reported somewhere. Like the 1960 series against Rosewall, these results are almost never mentioned in the history reviews.
We should draw a distinction between such exhibition series and a more regular tour, such as the New Zealand tour of 1964, where most of the results, dates, locations, scores were reported.

Does anyone know of a round robin event played around 1963 or 64. It was on television i think it took place in Los Angeles as there a lot of film stars there . The players from memory were Hoad ,Rosewall ,Laver ,Olmedo,Bucholz and Gimeno, it was a one advantage set first to 10 games .i think Rosewall won it.Cheers TomWILL 65

Does anyone know of a round robin event played around 1963 or 64. It was on television i think it took place in Los Angeles as there a lot of film stars there . The players from memory were Hoad ,Rosewall ,Laver ,Olmedo,Bucholz and Gimeno, it was a one advantage set first to 10 games .i think Rosewall won it.Cheers TomWILL 65

Click to expand...

I can also remember Jack Kramer introducing Rosewall and Hoad as number one and two in the world, a long time ago.TomWill

That would have been in 1963 when Rosewall and Hoad were the top 2 professional players, or perhaps 1962. Not 1964, because Laver was in the top 2 by then for sure.

Click to expand...

It was in June, 1964, the Masters round robin in L.A. with a pro set format.
Rosewall defeated Sedgman in the final.
Hoad had won the New Zealand tour earlier that year over Laver and Rosewall.
At this point, Laver had not won a big event.